Dismissed

Mahabir and Anr. v. Ram Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Nov 2014RSA/3921/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal disputed the dismissal of a suit seeking declaration of ownership over agricultural land and correction of mutation entries. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose as inheritance did not remain in abeyance and the plaintiff had failed to challenge prior mutations effectively within the limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law being held to arise for determination.

Mahabir and Anr. Vs Ram Singh and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.3921 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3921 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.11.2014

Mahabir and others

... Appellants

Vs.

Ram Singh and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J.

¶13

This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff /appellant was also dismissed.

¶14

The short point involved in the present appeal, which has been filed at the instance of legal representatives of Sona Deviplaintiff, is that the plaintiff-Sona Devi in the year 2008 filed suit against Ram Singh and others seeking to declare her owner of the agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village Mohdinpur Thirana, District Panipat and challenged the mutation

¶15

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

RSA No.3921 of 2014 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

No.1196 dated 21.08.1976, mutation No.1202 dated 03.01.1977, mutation No.2109 dated 22.10.2002 and mutation No.2122 dated 28.02.2003 being illegal, void and result of fraud and misrepresentation and the revenue record showing ownership of the persons other than the plaintiff was also sought to be corrected with the relief of possession and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner.

¶19

On merits, the suit was contested by the defendants by raising numerous pleas as well as plea of limitation. Besides objection of limitation, an objection qua the suit having been barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC was also taken.

¶20

The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, besides on merits as well, particularly on the ground that plaintiff was aware of the property left behind by Ratia as she had approached the Civil Court in the year 1983 and therefore, could not claim that she had no knowledge of the suit land though situated in the different village. Earlier suit was filed with regard to village Matlauda and some other village and the present suit pertained the revenue estate of village Mohdinpur Thirana, District Panipat .

¶21

Appeal filed against the impugned judgment and decree , also dismissed on the similar grounds and findings as rendered by the trial Court.

¶22

Counsel for the appellant appearing on behalf of the legal

¶23

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶24

RSA No.3921 of 2014 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

representatives of Sona Devi submitted that both the Courts below miserably failed to consider the mutation regarding the suit land as the same was sanctioned on the basis of fraud and the suit could not have been dismissed on the point of limitation as the plaintiff had claimed the ownership on the basis of inheritance and there is no limitation prescribed for filing the suit for possession and inheritance. Thus, the present appeal involves substantial questions of law.

¶27

In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of Mohinder Singh (died) and represented by his LRs and another vs. Kashmira Singh 1985 R.R.R.339 and Ganpat and another vs. Lachhman and others 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 9. Both the judgments do not apply to the facts and circumstance of the present case, as they pertain a proposition of law that inheritance cannot remain in abeyance. Facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different. In the present case, inheritance did not remain in abeyance, mutation were affected long time back and Sona Devi-plaintiff also claimed her right way back in the year 1983 with regard to property situated in different village, however, failed to challenge the mutations, if she had any grievance in respect of the property. No explanation has been given challenging mutation No.1196 dated 21.08.1976, mutation No.1202 dated 03.01.1977, mutation No.2109 dated 22.10.2002 and mutation No.2122 dated 28.02.2003 while filing suit in the year 2008 so as to bring the same within permissible period of limitation.

¶28

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.03 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶29

RSA No.3921 of 2014 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

Both the Courts below rendered the finding of fact on the

¶32

basis of material on record.

¶33

In view of the observations given above, no substantial question of law arise for determination of this Court.

¶34